Thursday, January 31, 2013

Military professionals agree second amendment is primarily a defense against
government tyranny

Paul Joseph WatsonInfowars.comJanuary 31, 2013

Over 1000 Green Berets have signed a letter re-asserting their
oath to support and defend the Constitution by protecting the second amendment
rights of American citizens.

The letter, which originally featured at ProfessionalSoldiers.com, was written by
“current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special
Forces soldiers.”

It highlights the fact that the Constitution was drafted primarily
as a means of protecting citizens against “governmental tyranny and/or
oppression,” further citing the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who
outlined the purpose of the second amendment when he stated, “The right of the
citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of
the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the
usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are
successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over
them.”

“Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded
tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens
prior to installing their murderous regimes,” states the letter. “At the
beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the
British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding
Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they
were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was
never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.”

The legal precedent of the right to keep and bear arms which
includes weapons “in common use” by the military is also documented, as is the
definition of the term “militia,” which as Court Justice Scalia ruled in 2008,
“comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common
defense.”

Tackling numerous sacred cows brought up by gun control advocates,
the letter points out that the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban was completely
useless in preventing mass shootings because instead of using high capacity
magazines, shooters like Columbine killer Eric Harris simply bought more 10
round magazines and changed them more often.

The letter also documents how, despite its draconian gun ban in
1996, gun crime in the United Kingdom has continually increased, whereas firearm
related homicides in the United States decreased by 9 per cent five years after
the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban.

At the end of the letter, eight steps are recommended to reduce
gun violence while still maintaining the sanctity of the second amendment,
including a repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which allows
shooters to carry out their massacres unimpeded by responsible gun owners.

Stricter border controls to tackle the flow of illegal firearms
from Mexico are also advocated, as is the return of firearm safety programs to
schools. The letter also discourages the proliferation of violence in movies and
video games, citing recent scientific studies which draw a correlation between
desensitization to violence and aggressive behavior in young people and
adults.

Amidst the Obama administration’s effort to curtail the second
amendment through both executive orders and legislation, numerous top law enforcement officials from across the
country have gone public to assert that they will not follow federal orders to
confiscate firearms.